hashashinwikiaorg-20200213-history
Hassan II
Ḥasan ʿAlā Dhikrihi's Salām (Persian/Arabic: حسن على ذكره السلام) or Hassan II was the leader of the Hashashin of Nizari Ismaili state from 1162 until 1166. From his capital of Alamut he ruled parts of Persia and possibly Syria. His chief subordinate in Syria would have been Rashid ad-Din Sinan, the Old Man of the Mountain, if we are to believe that Sinan wasn't independent from Alamut. The historians call him Hasan II with a view to count Hasan bin Sabbah as Hasan I in the series of Alamut's rulers, while other make his father, Imam al-Kahir as Hasan I and Hasan II to him in the list of Alamut's Imams. His other titles were Maliku'r riqab (Lord of the servants), Maliku'l qulub (Lord of the hearts), Malik as-Salam (Lord of peace), Hasan-i Kabir(Hasan, the great) and Qaim al-Qiyama (Lord of resurrection). Among the Persian sources, he is widely known as Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam, and in the Syrian sources, he is called Aqa dhikrihi al-Salam. Mustapha Qazwini writes in Tarikh-i Guzida (ed. by Nicholson, Leiden, 1910, p. 523) that, "He was also known as Kura Kiya (Lord of the villages) in Qazwin, a fact which suggests that the people of Qazwin were especially acquainted with him." We must cast a glance over contemporary period that the Abbasid caliph Mustanjid (d. 1170) was ruling in Baghdad at that time. The Seljuq sultan Arslan (d. 1176) was reigning in Persia. In Egypt, the last ruler of the Fatimid empire was al-Adid (d. 1171). The Muslim rules were submerging in declination, therefore, none among them had a courage to attack on Alamut. Validity as an Imam and a descendant of Nizar Ata Malik Juvaini (1126-1283) compiled Tarikh-i Jhangusha in 1260. He and later historians are responsible for distorting the historical facts and producing a romanticized image of the Assassin history and doctrines. Juvaini's work, to quote W. Barthold in Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion (London, 1928, p. 40), "has not yet been valued at his deserts." Barthold further writes, "Juvaini is not completely master of his materials; in his narrative there are sometimes flagrant contradictions to be found." (Ibid.) According to Historians of the Middle East(London, 1962, p. 136), "Juvaini's sources appear to have been purely oral." Sir John Glubb also writes in The Lost Centuries (London, 1967, p. 271) that, "Juvaini served under Halagu in Persia and was thus perhaps obliged to flatter him." Henry H. Howorth remarks in his History of the Mongols (London, 1876, 1:20-21) that, "His position prevented Juvaini from being anything but a panegyrist of the Mongols, whose conquests he excuses, and whose western campaign he argues was providentially arranged, so that by their means the religion of Islam might be widely disseminated." D'Ohsson was the first European to have examined the work of Juvaini critically, and accused him of extravagant flattery of the Mongols, vide Histoire des Mongols (Amsterdam, 1834, 1:20). In the words of Marshall Hodgson, "Juwayni read records in the Alamut Nizari library after its capture, before ordering its destruction. He wrote an account based on these sources, but altered in form to suit an anti-Nizari taste, and decked with curses." (op. cit., p. 26). It is therefore, difficult to determine any exactitude in the hyperbolic words of Juvaini. Juvaini emphasized to make Imam Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam (Hasan II) as the son of Muhammad bin Kiya Buzrug, in a doubtful manner. His objective was to connect the lineage of the Imams with Muhammad bin Kiya. Juvaini and the later historians however had to admit that when Imam Hasan II made his appearance before his followers, thronged at Alamut, none opposed or considered him as the son of Muhammad bin Kiya. If there had been a little doubt, it is possible that they or a faction must have opposed without taking oath of allegiance, as it is a cornerstone of the Ismaili doctrines that an Imam must be a son of the Imam. No irrelevant person could venture on that occasion to claim for Imamate, and if it was true, it must have been claimed in another region, and not inside the castle, where his life was most possibly fraught in danger. According to Dabistan al-Mazahib (comp. in 1653, p. 237), "Only the enemies of Hasan Ala Zikrihi's Salam considered him the son of Muhammad bin Kiya Buzrug." Dr. Nassih Ahmed Mirza writes in Syrian Ismailis at the time of the Crusades (an unpublished dissertation, University of Durham, 1963, p. 191) that, "During his (Hasan II) reign, his enemies spread false rumours that he was not a genuine descendant of Nizar, but these slanders were received by his followers with disgust and dissatisfaction. As for the Imam himself, he paid no attention to such slanders, but continued to send orders to his governors and da'is under his seal and signature which include his family trees, thus ignoring the propaganda of his calumniators." Juvaini and others, who followed him attempted to equate Imam Hasan II with Hasan, the son of Muhammad bin Kiya, making them one character, and tried to brush aside the historicity of Hasan II. Juvaini emphasized from beginning to end that Hasan, the son of Muhammad bin Kiya had impersonated as an Imam. The undeniable thing in the face of facts however reveals that these two persons, each known as Hasan at one time were two separate persons. Dr. Mustapha Ghaleb in The Ismailis of Syria (Beirut, 1970, pp. 73-74) has appended an important letter of Imam Hasan II, which had been circulated among the Ismailis in 1163. This letter itself asserts that both Imam Hasan II and Hasan, the son of Muhammad bin Kiya were two separate persons at one time. It reads:- "Our deputy, al-Hasan bin Muhammad bin Kiya Buzrug is our da'i and hujjat. All those who follow our doctrine have to obey him in the religious and civic affairs, and to execute his orders and consider his speeches as ours. We hope that they will not disobey; but be abided by it and act as if it was issued by us." Birth Hasan Ali, or Abu'l Hasan, surnamed Zikrihi's Salam (peace be on his mention) was born in Alamut. He is reported to have born in 1145, but according to another tradition, he was born in 1142. Lord of Alamut In 1164 Hassan, leading the Hashashin, proclaimed the Qiyamat, the abrogation of Sharia law. This violation of Islamic custom scandalized Sunnis and orthodox Shias, who retaliated with violence against Hassan's followers. Declaration of the qiyama Only two years after his accession, the Imām Hasan ‘ala dhikri al-salam, apparently conducted a ceremony known as qiyama ''(resurrection) at the grounds of the Alamut Castle, whereby the Imām would once again become visible to his community of followers in and outside of the Nizārī Ismā'īlī state. Descriptions of this event are also preserved in Rashid al-Din’s narrative (not to be confused with Rashid Ad-Din Sinan) and recounted in the Haft Bab-i Abi Ishaq, an Ismaili book of the 15th century AD. However, these are either based on Juwayni, or don't go into great detail. No contemporary Hashashin account of the events has survived, and it is likely that scholars will never know the exact details of this time. Death The Imām Hasan ‘ala dhikrihi al-salam died a violent death in 1166, only a year and a half after the declaration of the ''qiyama. According to Juwayni, he was stabbed in the Assassin castle of Lambasar by his brother in law, Hasan Namwar. He was succeeded by his son Imām Nūr al-Dīn Muhammad who abandoned Hassan's schemes of world revolution. Category:Imams Category:Lords of Alamut